Put a remote switch on all of their other gear. Pull a pistol, tazer, beating stick, bear mace, handcuffs or anything else from the utility belt and it auto triggers the recording including the 30 seconds of video AND AUDIO.

If the situation requires one of these 'tools' it should be recorded. No off switch while a 'tool' is out of it's holster.

I'm not a writer so I'm probably not going to express myself as good as I'd like to, but I'll give it a try.

To me censorship is the use of force, large or small, to restrict the message of someone else.

I not very interested in this particular topic, but what bothers me is that there have been a couple articles on Techdirt, celebrating the use of trademark law to force someone to change their speech... because reasons....

The mantra here on Techdirt has always seemed to me to be, counter 'bad speech' with 'good speech.' Of course, good and bad is based on personal perspective.

I realize it's not possible to reason with some people. They may honestly believe their words shouldn't offend other people, or they may secretly hope that they do. We may not be able to use 'our good speech' to counter 'their bad speech.' But laws that can be used to censor the 'horrible people' we disagree with, can be turned around and used on the 'good people' we like.

Pointing out that they aren't being forced to change their name, they just cant have the trademark is just a dodge. The people pushing to remove the trademark aren't doing so because they want to use the mark, they are doing it to try and get the team to change the name. Clear law or not, these articles read like "yeaaa, they are going to have to change because the law says so." If it were something like the Red Cross being targeted for Christian vs. Muslim wars, would the tone of the article be different?

Like I said, I have no interest in debating the topic of the article. I just feel a bit disappointed in what I see as happiness over the use of trademark law (right or wrong) to force someone to change their speech.